Comment by Kon5ole

I want to highlight two things as counterarguments - 1) nuclear waste is not comparable with solar panel waste and 2) Land use for solar is not comparable with land use for nuclear.

Solar panel waste does not require army supervision to prevent it being used for terrorist acts. The US army has personell permanently stationed at plants that have been closed for several decades by now. They keep costing money for decades after they stopped producing any power.

As of 2025 there isn't a single nuclear site that has ever been in operation that has stopped costing money for the population of the country it is in, simply because of the waste. And there is no end in sight.

As for land, solar panels are usually deployed on land that can still be used for other things. (Rooftops of homes and office buildings, grazing grounds for sheep and farmland for crops that need shade).

The last point is of course why many countries have been able to deploy solar that matches the output of their nuclear generation in just a few years. You have hundreds of thousands of carpenters and electricians that can work simultaneously on building solar panel installations and they get approved by homeowners without any bureaucracy.

Looking at China, the US, the EU, Japan and even a nuclear pioneer like Canada, you see that Solar adds the equivalent of several new nuclear power plants per year, and the power is available immediately.

The only argument with merit is that nuclear works at night and during winter - but so do many other things, much cheaper things, things that don't take a decade+ to build and don't require eternal expensive vigilance.